@MynaFrett your GTO post took longer to read than I normally last in most MTTs. I'm just glad I reached the conclusion to fold AQ based on gut instinct rather than GTO or any semblance of poker ability!
That "gut instinct" is your poker ability though. I didn't know this stuff either 'officially' until a few years ago but prior to that my instincts, like yours, just told me it wasn't right to be cold calling in these situations. I only found that article today as I was looking for something to backup my thoughts expressed in my previous post that may have a little more weight to it and be respected more than what may have been regarded as just my opinion on the matter.
There is more to being a good poker player than just understanding the theory, of course there is. Players like Phil Ivey, Eric Seidel and Patrick Antonius (proper old school crushers who still crush to this day) were playing a game closer to 'GTO' than most other players years and years before GTO and solvers existed. They were doing that purely on those instincts, natural ability and just innately understanding the game on a deeper level than their peers, also figuring things out for themselves and implementing them into their games.
Of course none of us mere mortals playing these games have anywhere close to those levels of natural ability. We have been playing for years without any real kind of study and our games are riddled with leaks which we didn't know existed. Things we were doing which we thought were standard end up being completely wrong and have been costing us money. These failings are exacerbated now by the fact that a lot of kids getting into the game these days are starting with these training apps and articles or watching youtube videos of coaches/professionals explaining all these concepts and how to apply them properly in game. They are starting with a blank slate free of the stains from years of bad practice upon which they are building coherent, consistent, profitable strategies.
Whereas in years gone by it was simply a case of being less bad than your peers in these games to make money we are now competing with these players who actually know what they are doing and they are more often than not winning the money. These players with good instincts AND good fundamentals are the ones with 40%/45%/50% ROI's. There are still some decent players with good instincts but questionable fundamentals who might even get close to 30/35% ROI in some games but I think they are few and far between. Most of those players are 20% ROI players at absolute best and the rest will be small winners/breakeven even in lower stakes games.
None of this matters if you're not bothered about your decreasing win rates or interested in your win rate at all and play purely for fun but if you do care about these things I think it's useful to know how the landscape has changed over the years and what kind of player you are increasingly competing with now.
I'm gonna get dog's abuse for this, but I'm probably going to fold, albeit reluctantly.
There's been an open & a 3-bet and now we are going to have to play this pot out of position with A-Q. And if we call we may even see a 4 bet from one of the two. And I'm certainly not raising here. I don't like it & I'm quite sure that I can find a better spot later.
None of this matters if you're not bothered about your decreasing win rates or interested in your win rate at all and play purely for fun but if you do care about these things I think it's useful to know how the landscape has changed over the years and what kind of player you are increasingly competing with now.
This fairly well sums me up. I have no time/interest to study now and i'm full aware that i'm way behind the average player who i go up against theses days. But that's ok for me. I still have a little bit of undestanding and still make a few quid from time to time.
So, AQo would have been printing with the 4 bet then and this illustrates perfectly why the good aggressive players win all the money. They don't refuse this 4 bet spot with the AQo against normal ranges so with these reads on these two in particular they would be 4 betting even wider. Against these ranges specifically it looks like AJo, KQo and KTs could become profitable 4 bets, maybe even as low as ATo and QJs become worth considering for the bottom of range 4 bets. So we still fold an awful lot but we would definitely get to 4 bet more with this information. Apart from the sizing (which is bad) the J9s 3 bet from the BTN vs CO is good selection but certainly on the more aggressive side. That's why reads/notes are so important in these games. If we were on the BTN and those two had been HJ open and CO 3 bet we would clearly be able to cold call wider. So those would be the adjustments here - cold call even more (or 4 bet) in position against them and 4 bet even more from the blinds.
If I were in your shoes with AQo in the Big Blind, facing a raise and a re-raise, I'd likely go for the all-in shove. Here's why:
Fold Equity: Shoving all-in puts maximum pressure on your opponents. They might fold hands that would otherwise see a flop, giving you a decent pot without a showdown.
Hand Strength: AQo is a strong hand, especially in a six-handed game. It's likely ahead of the button's 3-bet range.
Stack Sizes: Your stack size allows you to make a significant shove, which can be intimidating for your opponents.
By shoving, you leverage your fold equity and maximize your chances of winning the pot outright. If you get called, AQo still has good equity against many hands. It's a high-risk, high-reward play, but in this situation, it might be the best move.
Calculating Equity Using a poker equity calculator, we can estimate the equity of AQo against typical ranges for the opponents:
None of this matters if you're not bothered about your decreasing win rates or interested in your win rate at all and play purely for fun but if you do care about these things I think it's useful to know how the landscape has changed over the years and what kind of player you are increasingly competing with now.
This fairly well sums me up. I have no time/interest to study now and i'm full aware that i'm way behind the average player who i go up against theses days. But that's ok for me. I still have a little bit of undestanding and still make a few quid from time to time.
Is your win rate really decreasing that much though? Looks to me like like you still do very well in the games you play. I don't think you're way behind the average player in those games.
So, AQo would have been printing with the 4 bet then and this illustrates perfectly why the good aggressive players win all the money. They don't refuse this 4 bet spot with the AQo against normal ranges so with these reads on these two in particular they would be 4 betting even wider. Against these ranges specifically it looks like AJo, KQo and KTs could become profitable 4 bets, maybe even as low as ATo and QJs become worth considering for the bottom of range 4 bets. So we still fold an awful lot but we would definitely get to 4 bet more with this information. Apart from the sizing (which is bad) the J9s 3 bet from the BTN vs CO is good selection but certainly on the more aggressive side. That's why reads/notes are so important in these games. If we were on the BTN and those two had been HJ open and CO 3 bet we would clearly be able to cold call wider. So those would be the adjustments here - cold call even more (or 4 bet) in position against them and 4 bet even more from the blinds.
I dont think you can change your mind once you have seen the cards.
Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,030 November 28 edited November 28 @HAYSIE
I'm gonna get dog's abuse for this, but I'm probably going to fold, albeit reluctantly.
There's been an open & a 3-bet and now we are going to have to play this pot out of position with A-Q. And if we call we may even see a 4 bet from one of the two. And I'm certainly not raising here. I don't like it & I'm quite sure that I can find a better spot later.
FOLD
MynaFrett Member Posts: 784 November 28 edited November 28 Tikay is bang on with his assessment of this situation as far as I'm concerned.
@HAYSIE I don't think you've quite understood any of my posts, I haven't changed my mind at all. I am more likely looking for reasons to take the passive line and fold with the bottom of the range rather than be aggressive with 4 bets (ie AQo in this example) - I am not one of those good aggressive players I'm talking about although I am trying to get there. Calling is still not an option and I think this is a really good example for why we don't call from the blinds here, even when the ranges turn out to be so wide. Have you at least taken that from it?
It has been a great hand to look at anyway, so thanks for sharing. I've certainly learnt a few things on top of having some existing ideas confirmed. It certainly shows the power and efficiency of three betting. Even with a 3 bet which is too small in theory the player has been able to isolate a wide range and get themselves heads-up, forcing the blinds off of their equity and put them in situations where they might consider calling (bad in theory as we now know if we didn't already) and forcing folds from hands which could be 4 betting.
I think the takeaways for me are
a) 3 bet more aggressively particularly from CO and BTN and even more so if we know the opener to be very wide. We give ourselves the opportunity to go HU in position vs a wide range and also put the players left to act in some very awkward spots, often folding them off of their equity
b) don't be afraid to 4 bet from the blinds particularly when facing these opens and 3 bets from wide players/positions. Even when deeper stacked and expecting to be called quite often and play post flop it's clear some hands will retain their equity and playability against such wide ranges even out of position and especially when we get one of those players to fold pre flop
@HAYSIE I don't think you've quite understood any of my posts, I haven't changed my mind at all. I am more likely looking for reasons to take the passive line and fold with the bottom of the range rather than be aggressive with 4 bets (ie AQo in this example) - I am not one of those good aggressive players I'm talking about although I am trying to get there. Calling is still not an option and I think this is a really good example for why we don't call from the blinds here, even when the ranges turn out to be so wide. Have you at least taken that from it?
It has been a great hand to look at anyway, so thanks for sharing. I've certainly learnt a few things on top of having some existing ideas confirmed. It certainly shows the power and efficiency of three betting. Even with a 3 bet which is too small in theory the player has been able to isolate a wide range and get themselves heads-up, forcing the blinds off of their equity and put them in situations where they might consider calling (bad in theory as we now know if we didn't already) and forcing folds from hands which could be 4 betting.
I think the takeaways for me are
a) 3 bet more aggressively particularly from CO and BTN and even more so if we know the opener to be very wide. We give ourselves the opportunity to go HU in position vs a wide range and also put the players left to act in some very awkward spots, often folding them off of their equity
b) don't be afraid to 4 bet from the blinds particularly when facing these opens and 3 bets from wide players/positions. Even when deeper stacked and expecting to be called quite often and play post flop it's clear some hands will retain their equity and playability against such wide ranges even out of position and especially when we get one of those players to fold pre flop
Under normal circumstances I would have snap shoved in that spot. I am trying to be less reckless. There were a number of factors that seemed dangerous. I have seen a number of players lately, limping in early position with monsters, presumably hoping for a raise behind. Then there was a 3 big raise, which is normal. Followed by a small reraise. The small reraise is often done by someone with a monster, who doesnt want to lose their customer. I suppose it is much easier looking at it after the event.
If the shove was the correct play with AQo, then I suppose you will often lose in that spot. Although a call from either of them would have been doubtful in this case. How often will you get raised, and reraised by J9, and J4?
All those things you mention (the limp, the raise, the small 3 bet) do look potentially dangerous, I agree with that and that's why I would probably still see myself folding in this spot more often than not even after the lengthy discussion we've had about the merits of being more aggressive here. That's where the notes/reads are going to come in in determining when to be aggressive here and when to just pass it up. From this hand alone we get great information about three individuals -
1) we know that the limper doesn't just have very strong traps/inducing hands when they open limp this position and stack size
2) we know that the player trying to isolate the limp is way too wide
3) we know that the player 3 betting can be wide and aggressive with their hand selection in these situations, even if it is just an adjustment on their part because they already had this information about the potentially loose/wide limper and the loose/wide isolator
So we know now that amongst this group of players when we see these lines we can be more aggressive in future. Against players, like you say, who are trapping too much when they limp this position and stack size (especially if they think they are limping into aggressive players) and the players using this small 3 bet with the nuts it's still going to be best to just get out of the way.
It's interesting that you say you are "trying to be less reckless" whilst I am looking for more opportunities to perhaps be a little more reckless. Reckless might not be the best word to use. Maybe you just want to start taking the aggressive option less frequently whilst I want to start taking the aggressive option more frequently. I do think that if we don't have the reads/notes one way or the other (not knowing for sure whether players are too loose or too tight) we should try to lean into the aggressive option and then adjust once we do have that information rather than too often default to the tight/passive option first.
Those good, aggressive players don't worry about running into the nuts sometimes, if they see a good spot to be aggressive, pre flop and post flop, they take it.
All those things you mention (the limp, the raise, the small 3 bet) do look potentially dangerous, I agree with that and that's why I would probably still see myself folding in this spot more often than not even after the lengthy discussion we've had about the merits of being more aggressive here. That's where the notes/reads are going to come in in determining when to be aggressive here and when to just pass it up. From this hand alone we get great information about three individuals -
1) we know that the limper doesn't just have very strong traps/inducing hands when they open limp this position and stack size
2) we know that the player trying to isolate the limp is way too wide
3) we know that the player 3 betting can be wide and aggressive with their hand selection in these situations, even if it is just an adjustment on their part because they already had this information about the potentially loose/wide limper and the loose/wide isolator
So we know now that amongst this group of players when we see these lines we can be more aggressive in future. Against players, like you say, who are trapping too much when they limp this position and stack size (especially if they think they are limping into aggressive players) and the players using this small 3 bet with the nuts it's still going to be best to just get out of the way.
It's interesting that you say you are "trying to be less reckless" whilst I am looking for more opportunities to perhaps be a little more reckless. Reckless might not be the best word to use. Maybe you just want to start taking the aggressive option less frequently whilst I want to start taking the aggressive option more frequently. I do think that if we don't have the reads/notes one way or the other (not knowing for sure whether players are too loose or too tight) we should try to lean into the aggressive option and then adjust once we do have that information rather than too often default to the tight/passive option first.
Those good, aggressive players don't worry about running into the nuts sometimes, if they see a good spot to be aggressive, pre flop and post flop, they take it.
I wouldnt disagree with much of that. Although mad players do have some good hands. I used the term reckless on purpose. I have played aggressively on times, but with little thought. I am therefore trying to put a little more thought into it.
Ok you can have the players. UTG mildsteal0 +1 MynaFrett +2 jedinemo Button. lescrow07 SB. jonnyboy63 BB. HAYSIE.
Of course which players are in the hand matters. Although I do not think it is fair to comment on players not in the thread.
To take 2 simple examples. Because we all have different call/raise ranges, and different 3-bet and 4-bet ranges.
We know @Tikay10 is not wedded to AQ in that spot. Because he said so. Which means his calling and raising range is very narrow. Whereas you are considerably more "sticky". You are likely to call in that spot. (If you did not, then the hand would likely not merit discussion).
Some players flat monsters in early position. some people 3 and 4-bet with only 2 or 3 hands, whereas others raise far wider. All vital info before deciding whether to fold, call or raise/shove (both are possible at that stack depth, though both look equally poor to me)
I havent had a bet on football for many years. This morning I woke up and thought the 4 home teams in the Premier League would win today. So I had £100 on, and was expecting a return of £962. Thankyou Tottenham.
... but Tonys' results speak for themselves so what do i know...
Interesting, I hadn't really considered the impact of the smaller 3 bet size on the openers 4 bet frequency but what it does then is make it almost certain we ARE going to go out of position against two ranges with the openers increased flatting range in that case in what is still going to be a 3 bet pot (even though it's at a discount) if we start having a cold calling range here. Isn't it less about pot odds and more about how hard it is to realise equity out of position against two players in a 3 bet pot and also get full value the times me make a strong hand whilst also avoiding being on the wrong side of a 'cooler' when there is a lot of action though?
The way I try and see it is it's not that much different if you had faced say a 4x open and a call and are closing the action playing OOP vs 2 players. Playing OOP sucks but if you have a strong tight range then you're still going to be making enough in the spot for it to be profitable. ofc there is the possibility of a 4b here so you can't be as wide (you'll fold your low pairs your SC most of the time that otherwise you would always call)
And yeah with the results, it does make it seem like 4b with AQo is clearly better than fold. I don't think you need many reads to be able to make such a decision. Calling is probably fine too.
I think this hand is a good example of why it is important to be flexible with your strategy. Some players will be super bladed here, whilst others will have a very random range of hands. This situation can range anywhere between an easy fold to a value 4bet depending on opponent. I would not jam this situation though. You can raise for value against an erratic button and still fold vs the cut off when they 5 bet jam as their range will very likely be QQ+AK. Readless I probably lean to fold and pay attention to what shows down so I can note it, if I have a slight feeling this might be doing something spicy I call and If I have a strong feeling this guy is crazy I make it 4200 and play for it all.
Comments
There is more to being a good poker player than just understanding the theory, of course there is. Players like Phil Ivey, Eric Seidel and Patrick Antonius (proper old school crushers who still crush to this day) were playing a game closer to 'GTO' than most other players years and years before GTO and solvers existed. They were doing that purely on those instincts, natural ability and just innately understanding the game on a deeper level than their peers, also figuring things out for themselves and implementing them into their games.
Of course none of us mere mortals playing these games have anywhere close to those levels of natural ability. We have been playing for years without any real kind of study and our games are riddled with leaks which we didn't know existed. Things we were doing which we thought were standard end up being completely wrong and have been costing us money. These failings are exacerbated now by the fact that a lot of kids getting into the game these days are starting with these training apps and articles or watching youtube videos of coaches/professionals explaining all these concepts and how to apply them properly in game. They are starting with a blank slate free of the stains from years of bad practice upon which they are building coherent, consistent, profitable strategies.
Whereas in years gone by it was simply a case of being less bad than your peers in these games to make money we are now competing with these players who actually know what they are doing and they are more often than not winning the money. These players with good instincts AND good fundamentals are the ones with 40%/45%/50% ROI's. There are still some decent players with good instincts but questionable fundamentals who might even get close to 30/35% ROI in some games but I think they are few and far between. Most of those players are 20% ROI players at absolute best and the rest will be small winners/breakeven even in lower stakes games.
None of this matters if you're not bothered about your decreasing win rates or interested in your win rate at all and play purely for fun but if you do care about these things I think it's useful to know how the landscape has changed over the years and what kind of player you are increasingly competing with now.
None of this matters if you're not bothered about your decreasing win rates or interested in your win rate at all and play purely for fun but if you do care about these things I think it's useful to know how the landscape has changed over the years and what kind of player you are increasingly competing with now.
This fairly well sums me up.
I have no time/interest to study now and i'm full aware that i'm way behind the average player who i go up against theses days.
But that's ok for me. I still have a little bit of undestanding and still make a few quid from time to time.
If I were in your shoes with AQo in the Big Blind, facing a raise and a re-raise, I'd likely go for the all-in shove. Here's why:
Fold Equity: Shoving all-in puts maximum pressure on your opponents. They might fold hands that would otherwise see a flop, giving you a decent pot without a showdown.
Hand Strength: AQo is a strong hand, especially in a six-handed game. It's likely ahead of the button's 3-bet range.
Stack Sizes: Your stack size allows you to make a significant shove, which can be intimidating for your opponents.
By shoving, you leverage your fold equity and maximize your chances of winning the pot outright. If you get called, AQo still has good equity against many hands. It's a high-risk, high-reward play, but in this situation, it might be the best move.
Calculating Equity
Using a poker equity calculator, we can estimate the equity of AQo against typical ranges for the opponents:
UTG+2 Range: {JJ+, AQ+}
Button Range: {TT+, AQ+}
Equity Calculation:
AQo vs. UTG+2 Range: ~40%
AQo vs. Button Range: ~35%
Tikay10 Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 170,030
November 28 edited November 28
@HAYSIE
I'm gonna get dog's abuse for this, but I'm probably going to fold, albeit reluctantly.
There's been an open & a 3-bet and now we are going to have to play this pot out of position with A-Q. And if we call we may even see a 4 bet from one of the two. And I'm certainly not raising here. I don't like it & I'm quite sure that I can find a better spot later.
FOLD
MynaFrett Member Posts: 784
November 28 edited November 28
Tikay is bang on with his assessment of this situation as far as I'm concerned.
I don't think you've quite understood any of my posts, I haven't changed my mind at all. I am more likely looking for reasons to take the passive line and fold with the bottom of the range rather than be aggressive with 4 bets (ie AQo in this example) - I am not one of those good aggressive players I'm talking about although I am trying to get there.
Calling is still not an option and I think this is a really good example for why we don't call from the blinds here, even when the ranges turn out to be so wide. Have you at least taken that from it?
It has been a great hand to look at anyway, so thanks for sharing. I've certainly learnt a few things on top of having some existing ideas confirmed. It certainly shows the power and efficiency of three betting. Even with a 3 bet which is too small in theory the player has been able to isolate a wide range and get themselves heads-up, forcing the blinds off of their equity and put them in situations where they might consider calling (bad in theory as we now know if we didn't already) and forcing folds from hands which could be 4 betting.
I think the takeaways for me are
a) 3 bet more aggressively particularly from CO and BTN and even more so if we know the opener to be very wide. We give ourselves the opportunity to go HU in position vs a wide range and also put the players left to act in some very awkward spots, often folding them off of their equity
b) don't be afraid to 4 bet from the blinds particularly when facing these opens and 3 bets from wide players/positions. Even when deeper stacked and expecting to be called quite often and play post flop it's clear some hands will retain their equity and playability against such wide ranges even out of position and especially when we get one of those players to fold pre flop
I am trying to be less reckless.
There were a number of factors that seemed dangerous.
I have seen a number of players lately, limping in early position with monsters, presumably hoping for a raise behind.
Then there was a 3 big raise, which is normal.
Followed by a small reraise.
The small reraise is often done by someone with a monster, who doesnt want to lose their customer.
I suppose it is much easier looking at it after the event.
If the shove was the correct play with AQo, then I suppose you will often lose in that spot.
Although a call from either of them would have been doubtful in this case.
How often will you get raised, and reraised by J9, and J4?
I am happy with the fold.
1) we know that the limper doesn't just have very strong traps/inducing hands when they open limp this position and stack size
2) we know that the player trying to isolate the limp is way too wide
3) we know that the player 3 betting can be wide and aggressive with their hand selection in these situations, even if it is just an adjustment on their part because they already had this information about the potentially loose/wide limper and the loose/wide isolator
So we know now that amongst this group of players when we see these lines we can be more aggressive in future. Against players, like you say, who are trapping too much when they limp this position and stack size (especially if they think they are limping into aggressive players) and the players using this small 3 bet with the nuts it's still going to be best to just get out of the way.
It's interesting that you say you are "trying to be less reckless" whilst I am looking for more opportunities to perhaps be a little more reckless. Reckless might not be the best word to use. Maybe you just want to start taking the aggressive option less frequently whilst I want to start taking the aggressive option more frequently.
I do think that if we don't have the reads/notes one way or the other (not knowing for sure whether players are too loose or too tight) we should try to lean into the aggressive option and then adjust once we do have that information rather than too often default to the tight/passive option first.
Those good, aggressive players don't worry about running into the nuts sometimes, if they see a good spot to be aggressive, pre flop and post flop, they take it.
Although mad players do have some good hands.
I used the term reckless on purpose.
I have played aggressively on times, but with little thought.
I am therefore trying to put a little more thought into it.
Readless I probably lean to fold and pay attention to what shows down so I can note it, if I have a slight feeling this might be doing something spicy I call and If I have a strong feeling this guy is crazy I make it 4200 and play for it all.